Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-s56hc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T23:10:28.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fundamentals of particle phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Sanford A. Schane
Sanford A. Schane
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Particle phonology has evolved from a dissatisfaction that I experienced working within the current theoretical and notational framework of generative phonology. I had been looking at historical processes affecting vowels and diphthongs. In trying to describe the kinds of changes undergone by these entities, I was particularly frustrated by the inability of the standard notation to characterise in any enlightening way the internal structure of vowels, as well as relationships evident between particular vowels and diphthongs. The first difficulty – the nature of the internal structure of vowels – was not simply due to an inadequate set of distinctive features. Rather, the problem resided in the very notion of features as autonomous building blocks out of which segments are composed. This view contributed partially to the other difficulty – the expression of relationships between vowels and diphthongs. An additional factor to this problem came from restrictions of the notation in regard what could appear to the left and to the right of an arrow. The notation forced me to formulate rules whose statements often did not accord with my conception of the nature of the processes. It seems to me that a highly-valued notational system should have the property that I have come to call ‘mirroring’. If one believes that a process or change happens in a certain way, then the notation should not just describe that event but should reflect as closely as possible its manner of occurrence.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 1 , May 1984 , pp. 129 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, W. Sidney (1972). Sandhi. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning (1972). Diphthongization. Lg 48. 11–50.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Charles, Jones (1977). Phonological structure and the history of English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Bright, William (1965). Luiseño phonemics. IJAL 31. 342–345.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1970). Diphthongization in the Malmö dialect. Working Papers in Linguistics, Lund University 3, 1–20.Google Scholar
Carter, Richard (1970). Some theoretical implications of the Great Vowel Shift. In Didier, L. Goyvaerts & Geoffrey, K. Pullum (eds.) Essays on the Sound Pattern of English. Ghent: E. Storia-Scientia. 369–376.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y. & William, S.-Y. Wang (1975). Sound change: actuation and implementation. Lg 51. 255–281.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris, Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia J. (1978). On the natural phonology of vowels. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University 23.Google Scholar
Foley, James (1977). Foundations of theoretical phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grundt, Alice W. (1975). Compensation in phonology: open syllable lengthening. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman C. Gunnar, M. Fant & Morris, Halle (1965). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael J. (1970). On the notation of vowel length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3. 73–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Robert, P. Stockwell & Ronald, K. S. Macaulay (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 101–171.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter (1981). What are linguistic sounds made of? Lg 6. 485–502.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona & Peter, Ladefoged (1984). Variability of feature specifications.Google Scholar
Martinet, André (1955). Economie des changements phonétiques. Berne: A. Francke.Google Scholar
Nandris, Octave (1963). Phonétique historique du roumain. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Pagliuca, William & Richard, Mowrey (1980). On certain evidence for the feature [grave]. Lg 6. 503–514.Google Scholar
Pyle, Charles (1970). West Greenlandic Eskimo and the representation of vowel length. Papers in Linguistics 3. 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. (1973). [back] and [round]. In Stephen, R. Anderson & Paul, Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 174–184.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. (1984). Two English vowel movements: a particle analysis. In Mark, Aronoff & Richard, Oehrle (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
SPA [Stanford Phonology Archives] (1979) Crothers, John H., James, P. Lorentz, Donald, Sherman & Marilyn, M. Vihman (eds.) Handbook of phonological data from a sample of the world's languages. Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1972). Phonetic detail in assimilation: problems in Germanic phonology. Lg 48. 863–892.Google Scholar
Wang, William (1968). Vowel features, paired variables, and the English Vowel Shift. Lg 44. 695–708.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Patricia M. (1972). Linguistic change and the Great Vowel Shift in English. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira (1980). Why Scanian is not a case of multivalued features. LI 11. 432–436.Google Scholar